linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: kconfig exposing unbuildable driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:02:38 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	rdunlap@...otime.net, harvey.harrison@...il.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	randy.dunlap@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: kconfig exposing unbuildable driver

> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:01:53 +0100 Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:47:18PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Russell King wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:38:28PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Russell King wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > That was my initial approach as well, which got shot down by Andrew
> > > > > Morton and others as being unacceptable.
> > > > 
> > > > where?
> > > 
> > > In private mail.
> > > 
> > > > why?
> > > 
> > > Well, first I need to gain the permission of Andrew to post his private
> > > message.  I'm not being subborn here - I _do_ _not_ reproduce private
> > > messages in public without prior permission.
> > 
> > Sure, understood.
> > 
> > > > Seems like we need to push back on that part.
> > > 
> > > Talk to Andrew then.
> > 
> > He is cc-ed (although traveling much this week IIRC).
> 
> In which case, since it's likely I won't get a reply in the next hour
> (which'll delay my response by 24 hours) let me paraphrase what Andrew
> said.
> 
> Andrew believes that it is beneficial to have other architectures,
> particularly x86, build other architectures drivers.

Well.  I pointed out that there are arguments either way, and I do tend to
think that the let-x86-compile-it-too approach is perhaps the better one,
but that's a 51%/49% opinion.  Others disagree and lots and lots of code
has gone the other way.  Do whatever you think best ;)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/